About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34
law school in three parts of yale law school on the supreme court for corporately no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. it is a bizarre and unfortunate fact i think. but those are help interesting facts about the supreme court. but, frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if there's a take away here, i've gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and this was, you know, supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same. but just as on the other side of first street, the united states congress is deeply divided, according to party, so was the united states supreme court. and this is a moment of real partisan division at the supreme court. and that is exemplified in case
violate, violates the regulations of international law on the principles of free trade, and raises questions about the legality and morality of such practices. based on this, we call for lifting the embargo imposed on cuba by the united states for decades. we also renew our call for lifting and stopping all unilateral coercive measures imposed on the peoples of other countries, such as venezuela, belarus, iran, syria and the democratic people's republic of korea. mr. president, our aspiration to achieve a positive reform of the international organization stems from our desire to find a world based on justice, security and prosperity for all the peoples of the world, away from the colonial tendencies -- hegemonic tendencies of some countries that seek to exploit the united nations to achieve their own interests at the expense of other countries. we hope that the united nations can take the people of the world to a better future that fulfills their aspirations for life, coexistence, development and food sufficiency, and away from all forms of tension, confrontation and wars, pursuant
in constitutional law. well, i'm here to say something about the argument of this book, which as you can have heard is called "i am the change." and the title is meant to bring out president obama's louis the xiv side. louis the xiv said -- i am the state. and mr. obama became very close in an press conference to saying i am the change. the title is actually from suggestion of my editor. and publishers, i had entertained another possibility, which was actually suggested to me my my friend bill. barack obama, what the hell were we thinking? [laughter] as opposed to some of my conservative colleagues and friends, i don't think we get very far by labeling president obama a socialist or by trying to trace his foreign origins or his secret muslim "devotions" nor i do think even that we greatly alumni nate things by to -- as my old friend argues in his movie and two books about obama. i think it's fairer to begin fairer and more useful in the end -- excuse me. to begin admitting president obama is what he call himself namely a progressive or a liberal. and the rest of the title is on barack obama and the
're not a nation of all. at the center of this is the rule of law. the rule of law is one of the essential pillars of american exceptional as an. i stood clearly on that issue. most of the laws that we need out there, and i would add one more to it. it is called a new idea act is, and it is the new. the acronym stands for a illegal deductions act. breezy iras into the enforcement. a piece of legislation i have up there for a couple of cycles and it gives the employer safe harbor if they use e-verify but otherwise the irs would be able to be there to audit and it could take yards and dollar an hour and turn them into a $16 our employee which opens the door for iowans and hopefully i can finish in their robotic [applause] christie: what is your plan to deal with illegal immigration while still making iowa a warm and welcoming place for new immigrants? christie: well, first of all, we need to make sure we secure our borders and make sure that we don't have people coming across to my guns or drugs from their cross illegally. we need to make sure lawful citizens did first chance at jobs. but we also ne
, looking up to the law, the rule of law and above all to the law of loss in the constitution. and so for them, you can see this in the where woodrow wilson trees the federalist. he talks about it all the time but as an acquaintance with the. he never studied it carefully as one might in many colleges and universities today because he is soon to the meaning of the federalist was with the federalists did, accomplished, the works that preceded from a, the doctrines of the federalist or optional. they belonged to the world that had been surpassed by contemporary american, and this was a principle that the presses supplied rather versus the to religion as well as to education and the politics. that is why president obama is not embarrassed to say, as he says in his second book, the audacity of hope, that he believes a living constitution. the phrase, and to a large extent the idea come from wilson . that turn sounds so green, so natural, so organic. one of those averments the laws that republicans are always opposing. that's a deliberate distraction. a living constitution, the principle o
limited. a duty for liberty and right to keep me free and uphold the rule of law to ensure the system if we suffer injury in the physical sense or through fraud. the government can't keep us safe and it's so limited they should not be telling me that i have to buy health insurance or i will get taxed more. what should the role of government be in your life we are asking you in this morning's journal. it states in the constitution of the federal government is to do. 18 enumerations, the rest are reserved for the state's and the people. next call, jeff in texas. good morning to you, sir. >> caller: that would be kevin in washington. >> host: good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: i believe that if the proper role of the federal government is to protect individual liberties we are supposed to have rules against that, against fraud, against the injured. but the problem is the federal government has gone way beyond that. it seems like they want to redistribute what people have gained through their liberties and freedoms and once you do that, you are violating people's liber
. there were people in legal law firm conference rom, they could get an internet connection. people in starbucks where they could get an internet connection. people working at the kitchen tables around town. and all of a sudden, right around april 1st. bestart moving to the headquarter. this is literally six week aways from the announcement. and this just this big space. bigger than the room. far bigger than the room. three or four times of the size of the room. it was a whole floor of the high-rise building in chicago, and it was just kind of remarkable. we didn't have everybody in. we were slowly bringing people in. literally we were still getting the servers up. we had telephones ringing and people try to answer phone calls. we had e-mail coming in to our e-mail address. we didn't have a system to receive e nail a real way that you would want. we had many coming many. we didn't have budgets. and we had, you know, we had constituency leaders calling our political department because they wanted to have time with the candidate, we had our fundraisers, who had to raise money with the
law baseline, and cbo analyzes that. cbo talked about how going over the fiscal cliff at the end of this year would bring us back -- likely bring us back into recession, but they also talked about how the fiscal cliff later in the ten year window would cause higher economic growth. i think that's very important to hold on to because we have been in the habit of kicking the fiscal can down the road. they all happen to land in front of us, and i'm here today to say we shouldn't just kick the can down the road again. we shouldn't even try to substitute the fiscal can with the grand bargain like simpson-bowles simply because it is too hard for us. i know we can't do that. i'm proposing instead of, and i'm proposing, not congress, i'm proposing that instead of substituting the fiscal cliff or ignoring it, that we recycle those fiscal cans. we can't kick it, but we have to recycle it. there's the notion, all the fiscal cans representing certain policies that we were willing to commit to in the past that legislators past, committing to the tax bush cuts expiring at the end of 2010 and 2
. it was the law passed unanimously by congress signed by president clinton in 1993 to restore the scope of religious freedom protection that existed under the free exercise clause which we were railing against. withstand back in place, struck down by the states in 1997 but the federal government, mandated by federal law, we already had two early decisions from district courts involving private plaintiffs or for profit plaintiffs and the issue to address the merits, there were procedural issues because of ongoing regulatory process that might create a sort of interim step in terms of going up and down the court but that actually is going to get resolved between now and august 1st, 2013. the administrative process will be done and the courts will invariably go straight and you will get merit decisions uniformly by the end of next year. >> those that depend on what the administration does and who wins? >> not really. what the administration has put into play is a piece of the problem. and also the constraints they put upon themselves in addressing that limited issue indicates that there is
might address that gap. [laughter] there are six products of harvard law school and three products of yale law school on the supreme court. there are apparently no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. no, it is a bizarre and unfortunately fact, i think. but those are, i hope, interesting facts about the supreme court. but frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact. about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if be there's a takeaway here, i have gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and they're supposed to look, you know, it's supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same, but just as on the other side of first street the united states congress is deeply divided according to party, so is the united states
forgot. >> oh he did not forget it. he said how old are you? i said 24. just out of harvard law school, whatever. he lost me at harvard. am i right? >> you didn't get in neither? [laughter] i am saying he could certainly appreciate the similar upbringing in that respect but i hearken back to the same point. i think local politics and urban politics to me are the center of democracy. truly the greatest amount of opportunity is available there and i would love to hear other peoples comments on that but to me that is the importance of governance. >> so i guess i will pose one question to you and we have people ready to ask questions already. one of the things that you often hear millennials interacting with is media and technology and social media. we heard earlier today one of our expert said the social media sites are the village squares for civil discourse these days. so to hear from both of you how you are using media, social media and tech knowledge he. to relate and contact constituent. >> to some extent in my opinion sometimes if i don't post it on facebook is as if it didn't happ
't track is right. is opposed to comprehension immigration reform. he's in favor of the arizona law that most was declared unconstitutional by the united states senate -- by the united states supreme court. my opponent thought the arizona law was so good he wanted to bring a tear to nevada, but the one thing, the one thing that i can't believe he is opposed is the d.r.e.a.m. act. and he voted against it. not 80%, not 20%. he voted against 100% of the. what does the d.r.e.a.m. act said? it says if you're a youngster that has come to the united states through no fault of your own and you're in college or you volunteer for our military, you should have a pass to legal status. it couldn't be any more simple than that, and my opponent voted against it and the also come he's on record saying if he remains into united states senate he's going to vote against it again. the latino families in the state and in this country deserve to have that dream act passed. deserve comprehension immigration reform, you crack down on employers that knowingly hire undocumented workers, and then you give peo
lost his job. the brennan center at nyu school of law has been thorough investigation at the idea of voter fraud. they say basically it doesn't exist. there've been 10 or 12 cases in the first 10 years of this century out of hundreds of millions of those spirits someone may register as mickey mouse, but mickey mouse never shows up in rows. but nevertheless, rove has initiated a cam pain and its allies in more than 30 states legislature of having votes requiring voter ids. now part of the democrats are saying this is a severe form of voter suppression. that is in many cases you find the elderly was given up their drivers licenses, but it's perfect years, the out they no longer have a government issued i.d., so they are not allowed to vote. you have minorities that is hispanic. one of the challenge is hispanic timebomb. now there'll be 70 million in 2020. if they start to vote on that, it's going to be curtains for the republican speakers 10 million hispanics in texas alone. states like texas and arizona will flip from red to blue very soon, when sakic said. so this is one thing the
to respect international law. we probably violated the sovereignty with drones and covert action than we did under brush and there's a whole new set of questions there. i could -- the list could go on it seems like we have problems with the institution and we have problems with our ability to lead within the institution. i was wondering what your reaction to one or both of the issues. one is a generally statement. i agree with the ideas to win. you know, the power the soviet unions were strong. when the soviet union was strong and the idea of liberal internationalism will be strong as we can prove by example. the world of social networking which is the em emulation is hugely a powerful force in the world. .. and the whole number of rather meaningful things are done. the international criminal court . the key of the treaty. the land that -- antipersonnel landmines ban, small arms agreement. all of them were done with the u.s. voting exam. and the votes were like 178 to one and one pattern 46 with 18. those kinds of votes. in the u.s. was the only democracy with the exception of an drolen tip
set of laws is past. as quickly as they are passed election was figure out how to get around them. it's remarkably to campaign finance is a constant evolving issue. i think there's got to be mechanism, i work for to, million of politicians and my life. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank-and-file people should you be opposing some who so funny tempers a millionaire to be able to raise large amounts. i believe putting the money back have more accountability for the electorate and a much more integrity driven process an issue you're dreading to frame an election. sunday personally just. that's my from make money off these campaigns? absolutely. but from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we go back to that model. >> i don't know if i would necessary agree with that. look at what, i don't know if you saw the american crossroads add what super pacs actually to end with advertising does. a lot of people in here, remember the question in political science 101, should be elected representative do what he believes is right or what constituents because right? you
has just enumerated, but also because the world has changed around us. in part because the laws our policy. we spent an awful lot of time, effort and money after world war ii creating an international system, economic system in particular to stimulate the growth in the rest of the world. so, this is the success of the policy of several decades that has made us relatively less strong in terms of disposable cash and disposable incentives to get to the behavior that we want to see. militarily, we surely are as strong as we have ever been, but we live in a world that has a number of nuclear powers and we still live in the world before 1957 that had not. so, other than us. you know, to me it hardly even seems worth debating this is a different world. >> i was told we have to debate. [inaudible] the decline is the wrong word. i think the world is getting more crowded. they are growing faster and in economic terms the u.s. will have the west shared wealth for the years ahead but there isn't a country by the way that is as jessica said that is a story of american success. it's for 60 years
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
to slave law that anyone in the know if, on the abolitionist lived, if anyone in the north was to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be imprisoned or fined for breaking the law. this was a slave law by which a scene of a compromise between the north and south to war. so that was part of what the novel trying to do so, look, i made person and i'm against slavery as was most of them in the. and right to help a slave to find him or herself in our borders. we have the right to do that. we are not a slave state. we should be allowed to practice our laws as we see fit. >> more about harriet beecher stowe this weekend as booktv american history tv and c-span local content vehicles look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of a test domain saturday noon at booktv, and sunday at 5 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs we case featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every week and the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past pr
it for that purpose. doing this is a way of achieving kind of, sticking to the current law baseline paths of revenue and spending. not necessarily in the exact timing or form that the current law baseline looks right now but sticking with the essential elements. so those of you who know me know that i obsessed over the current law baseline. i'm quite fond of it and in the past i said what we need to do is follow strict pay as you go. i'm tired of this exempting this, ignoring that. let's stick to strict pay as you go. the next time we kick the can down the road we have to commit to paygo and no exceptions. i will modify that today. instead of paygo it is rego. recycle as you go. use every bit of essential elements but keep moving forward. set targets thaw achieve that congress will by x date, use y percent of the cans that we've kicked down the road. in terms of achieving the same amount of deficit reduction over the 10-year window. just use the budge -- budget committees and budge budget process to enforce this. to come up with reforms that achieve certain spending or revenue targets. the tpc's ana
international order that upholds the rule of law, of open access to all domains, and of the peaceful resolution of disputes. we seek a peaceful asia-pacific region where all the states of the region, all of them, can enjoy the benefits of security and continue to prosper just as they have for almost 70 years, since the valiant efforts of the brave men and women who fought so courageously in world war ii. indeed, part of the reason states in the region have been able to prosper has been due to our military presence. thanks to that historic security, states in the region have had the freedom to choose and forge their own economic and political futures. the stability provided an important measure by the united states military presence in the region helped, first, japan and south korea to rise and prosper, then southeast asia to rise and prosper, and now, yes, china and in a different way, india, to rise and prosper. working with all of them, we intend to continue to play that positive, pivotal stabilizing role. that's what the rebalance is all about. to those who ask whether we'll be able to deliv
the law. um, and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order, um, as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts until 2018. um, and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time we should be treated like everybody else, um, and again if, um, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban in the current competitive positive -- posture of the marketplace. >> what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears have been overstated. i think that the marketplace now is such
patients, to advocate for patients, and through tough law enforcement to protect patients. the partnership for safe medicines has been a steadfast and consistent voice towards these goals. in doing so, you felt the american people be safe from products that are sold as legitimate medicines that heal, but are far more likely to be dangerous. for batch of my deep appreciation and commitment, we must continue to work together. we must build on the successes that we've already achieved together, and we must continue to put the safety and health of the public as our first and foremost priority. so thank you for your time and for all the good work that all of you do, from the various positions you hold, and your commitment to this critical public health concern. thank you so much. [applause] >> this is the first book i've written where there's an actual same storyline running through it. it's a true story of about basically 10 days of london in 1854. it's a story of an incredibly terrifying outbreak that took place during this period, an outbreak of cholera. the first half of the book is really
and groups of men. rather than as the law holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same job. so what they're trying to do is have equal pay for equal work, not equal pay for equal work, which is two very different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same firm should be paid the same if they have radically different jobs. look at exxon, for example, that is a group of men and oil drilling activities. it's a dirty dangerous job. you could not get me to do. you have to pay people a lot to risked their lives doing that kind of work. exxon has a group of women in communications, assistant jobs, publications. there's no reason these two groups should be necessarily paid the same. but the paycheck benefit would be moving toward requiring firms to pay men and women the same, even if they're in very different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that's communism. >> diana furchtgott-roth, your book, women's figures, was there a time when women were treated unfairly in the work place? >> there certainly was. there were times in the 1950s and 1960s, y
the grandmother and build new education and yet segregation, jim crow law rose above it and insisted that his grandson's rise above its. fight, participate, eliminate but do not be consumed by it. in so many ways we talk about the founding fathers and yet the house fell in a way because of the contradiction and the generation rebuilds it. frederick others see -- frederick and others. do we today in our law and our culture give enough credit to that refunding? >> you think of the great moments in our history. we talk about of course the revolution, certainly the constitution that we celebrate now, 225 years. it was all coming apart and the country as we know today is reshaped after the civil war. the constitutional law what would it look like if there were no 14th amendment to the states. there is so much that goes beyond the war. i tell my clerks we have to go to gettysburg. this isn't just about pulling these little threads out of what we do every day about journalism and original was on and we argue it is much bigger than that. i see some people here who argue before the court. i'm not once
can practice our laws as we see fit. >> more about harriet beecher stowe's this weekend as booktv, american history tv and c-span local content vehicles with behind-the-scenes at the history of literary life of augusta, maine and noon eastern on booktv on c-span2 and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> michael grunwald presents his thoughts on the $800 billion stimulus bill, the american recovery reinvestment act signed into law by president obama on february 17, 2009. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> thanks, all of you, for coming and braving the rain. i am thrilled to start by 4 in new york. my wonderful parents are here. the only new yorkers who go to florida to visit their grandchildren. there are a lot of facts and figures and fun characters and colorful stories. i knew it was going to be controversial and it would be revisionist history of the obama stimulus and everybody hates the obama stimulus. obama he did too. a year after it passed a percentage of americans who believe the stimulus created jobs was lower than the percentage of americans w
to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be imprisoned or fined for breaking the law. it was seen as a compromise from the north to avoid war. so that was part of what the novel was trying to do, was to say listen, i am a person, harriet beecher stowe, as was most of new england. i am a slave to find spammers herself and her border. we have a right to do that. we are not delayed. >> house has done better than the senate or the obama administration making its proceedings more transparent to the public online. that is according to participants of a semi-foundation for an in washington d.c. the group also discussed the fact that lawmakers not only read the legislation of full before voting on it. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome. my name is daniel schuman, director of the advising committee and transparency. today's discussion is going to focus on whether congress is serious about transparency. we are going to beat the one 112 congress and also identify some of the deficits. we are going to do my speaking portion very quickly because it's really interesting is of course a
violation of what the intent of -- not the campaign finance law by the textile of what 501(c)(4)'s were supposed to be. spent i think it really is complicated. i had an interviewer reporting to me how i start talking a 501(c)(4) in the start menu set my personal goal is never to mention the phrase 501(c)(4) in my article. that's why stephen colbert was so good. he could managed to distill all this in the four minutes and try to explain why you should care. [inaudible] >> stephen colbert -- [inaudible] thank you for coming, and come up and asked for follow-up questions later on. [applause] >> leading up to tonight's presidential debate, a panel of experts now with some of the leadership styles of president obama and republican presidential nominee made wrong. former presidential hopeful and utah governor jon huntsman, congressman bart gordon, and weekly standard editor william kristol among the speakers at this event, life here at the brookings institution. it is just getting under way. >> leadership style and approach to management. so the questions we will be looking at today is how do
of the obstacles that she face. more women than men are in law school and medical school now. and so, when elizabeth dole would describe how she was one of 24 women at harvard law school, is really an older notion at this point. if you get distances her from the younger audience is. so i don't think it's a good idea for modern women candidate to keep describing the obstacles they face and how unique they are because we tend to resist voting for someone who was the first of anything because it seems scary and probably not a good idea because it's never done it before. so i think taking attention away from that is better. >> and not labeling issues as women's issues are feminist issues. i think all the women in the book really didn't run as women. there's a book called running as a woman. but when pat schroeder ran the first time for congress on colorado, someone asked her to come her to come into play and is running as a woman? her question was, do i have another option? [laughter] it is obvious this is a woman. it's obviously never had a woman president. so i don't think you need to make a
of what was his first election. we continue to get materials from his office in the law firm in new york city, and it's still getting awards and generating material for his career and so they come to rest over time. in 1990 having just been elected the senate majority leader, mitchell was involved in the 1990 amendments to the act and this is a letter from george h. w. bush thanking him for his collaboration and succeeding in getting that legislation passed. the 1990 amendment was important for us today. we paid $4 a gallon for gas in the sense that it was the amendment that discussed the composition of gas and the introduction of chemicals during certain seasons of the year in order to make for cleaner air. in a sample of his writing style. there are researchers to come because they're interested in particular topics but there's also people that come because the interested in particular techniques or approaches. some people are interested in the newspapers because of the negotiation for instance. and so this is a research question that bridges a variety of the records that we have and o
to the top of the harvard law review and a blind test becomes a top editor there. everything he has done as clean as a whistle. he's never broken a law comment on it or want from a perfect father american and all they do is crash the guy. >> so that is the bar now been set for the presidency. he hasn't broken any law. okay, i think we all can accept the nomination for presidency. look, the only trashing that has been done over the last three and a half years is to our economy and to our international stature and that has been done by this president. and actually, chris, i personally have complimented president obama many times and i'll be listened to my radio show now i share to do a fair amount. look, president obama might not know a lot about economics, but he does a mean karaoke. siliceous celebrate that. let's all hold hearings. mus back so in love with you. ♪ ishat all? come on. imagine mitt romney doing that. ♪ i'm so in love with you. >> i'm sorry, you've got to give it to both sides. our second obamagasm award. there's a priester, i can go to confession. goes to someone who c
was john legend to the small concert i can't remember what the town laws, but it was not a large city and he was in columbus and cleveland for the county seat and the reason he went there was that they had seen the registration numbers were lacking in this particular area and that to reach the registration goal which the disaggregate it from the state down to this particular piece of turf they had him do towards the registration right here for the city hall or whoever to go in there wasn't that they send john legend and to persuade people but they turned him in to turn people out and that's happened broadway's everywhere server will biggest it's rare talking about in october were there competing with each campaign will be competing differently in each of them based on their vocals which are coming out of those microtargeting predictions which they think every person is considering the manner the target and they are taking every man of people that they think are as persuade the ball and that is informing where the candidate goes to read as a reviewer to -- i know it is hard to predict
. >> that is $20 million. $40 million help. >> people don't realize that because of the new campaign finance laws, if you get sheldon adelson say that was such a good performance i will drop another $40 million into your campaign which they can do? >> sheldon adelson got in the hall. got to see it first-hand. >> could have cut the check on the spot. it is possible. we did a recently a very good piece on sheldon. you interviewed him. extraordinary amount of money can put into campaign. >> four times the previous record. most previous individual given, george soros $24 million in 2004 against george w. bush. >> he wasn't done yet. that is what i took away from your story. >> no, absolutely. >> if it will make a difference he will get. >> we've been able to study the obama campaign, the operation for, you know, five, five 1/2 years sort of in campaign mode and governing mode. how do they react to moment like this? they obviously don't panic but they do what? how do they take a bad thing and neutralize it and ultimately a good thing. how? >> the president has an expression. talks about our time in th
've decided to do that with admiral law cleared out in honolulu also to keep the tempo of our activities so that the defense department leadership to make decisions effectively and quickly about the asia-pacific region. i am conducting a defense department wide management review to support assess and implement all of those rebalanced initiatives. we are watching every dollar, every ship and a free plane to make sure that we execute our rebalancing effectively. so, in conclusion, we are not just talking the talk we are walking the walk even in a period of fiscal austerity we can and will invest in a continued military presence and engagement for the asia-pacific region for all the reasons and in all of the ways i outlined today. for each of our strategic initiatives we have had to make careful investment decisions and we the costs and measure benefits. we are investing in the new capabilities we need for the future and to do so we have to let go of the and needed capabilities and make difficult calls on the underperforming programs to make way for new capabilities and a better performing pro
negate some of the new laws that are intended to require photo i.d.s? >> first observation is in terms of that case in maryland, that was one misguided example where it never should've happened. the race wasn't that close so it was a huge mistake by that individual and he paid for it with time in prison. in terms of your concern about voter i.d., having to show i.d., i live in virginia and i just got my voter card and did they allow anything like a utility bill or anything like that? it's a lot easier to vote in america than to get on an airplane so if you're worried about fraud, i think that -- these are feasible requirements. >> i guess in terms of polling, we tried to pull a registered voter list so there are registered voters presumably and then in elections we also try to sample people who not only register but have voted in past elections. [inaudible] how you account for that? >> our caller has asked about the voter i.d.. not a lot you can do but some of these places as you have pointed out, they have been thrown out or if they have been basically put aside for this election for
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34